Hi there @PeterKvayt, thank you for this contribution! 👍

While we wait for one of the Core Collaborators team to have a look at your work, we wanted to let you know about that we have a checklist for some of the things we will consider during review:

• It's clear what problem this is solving, there's a connected issue or a description of what the changes do and how to test them
• The automated tests all pass (see "Checks" tab on this PR)
• The level of security for this contribution is the same or improved
• The level of performance for this contribution is the same or improved
• Avoids creating breaking changes; note that behavioral changes might also be perceived as breaking
• If this is a new feature, Umbraco HQ provided guidance on the implementation beforehand
• 💡 The contribution looks original and the contributor is presumably allowed to share it

Don't worry if you got something wrong. We like to think of a pull request as the start of a conversation, we're happy to provide guidance on improving your contribution.

If you realize that you might want to make some changes then you can do that by adding new commits to the branch you created for this work and pushing new commits. They should then automatically show up as updates to this pull request.

Thanks, from your friendly Umbraco GitHub bot 🤖 🙂

I can't understand what the issue is with the failed check.

Hi @PeterKvayt - I'll try to give this a review next week. Before I do though, are you able to update here or on the issue with a practical example of the problem the code concern you've found please? I do agree it looks incorrect, and it seems we should expect a property to behave the same with a block list or when used directly on a content item, but it would be good to understand what "real world" problem it is causing. Partly for prioritisation, and partly to be able to verify that the PR does resolve the issue. Thanks.

I can't understand what the issue is with the failed check.

This is due to the change you have made in to the signature of this method: Umbraco.Cms.Core.PropertyEditors.BlockValuePropertyValueEditorBase<TValue, TLayout>.MapBlockValueFromEditor(TValue) - as it's protected it's part of a public API, so we can't change this other than perhaps in a major version bump. So likely we would need to keep it, introduce a new method and obsolete the original.

Hi @AndyButland!
Thanks for the reply.
I will provide a practical example a little bit later (hopefully this week or at the beginning of next week).

Okay, so I have a few issues related to this PR:

• 15.3.0-rc2: FileUploadPropertyValueEditor throws "Invalid content key." #18718
• Why Umbraco.FilleUpload is not supported for blocks? #18755
• "currentValue" is not current in Umbraco.BlockList element properties #18872
• Error 404 on file link click. #18407 (comment) (this issue a little bit related to our PR, but the comment describes why I can't use the media picker).

I encountered the following situation: Initially, I was using the standard document type with the default Umbraco.FileUpload property (which, at the time, was not part of a Block List). Later, I needed to create a custom FileUpload property editor with an additional setting to manage a prefix for the uploaded file path. At that point, I started using my custom FileUpload property editor.

Eventually, I needed to use this custom editor within a Block List element property. Since it was a custom property editor, it was allowed to be used within Block List elements — unlike the default Umbraco.FileUpload, which isn't supported in that context. I resolved the issues related to using Umbraco.FileUpload in Block Lists (see: #18755).

As a result, I now have a custom FileUpload property editor that can be used inside Block List elements. It also handles file deletion from storage properly, as we're addressing the issue related to invalid current values that previously caused problems.

Hi @PeterKvayt - I've been reviewing this today and think it's looking good. Working as expected when I step through and I've resolved the breaking change and added some unit tests now to verify the behaviour.

I've also enabled the file upload property to be used in the block list - which, from what I read above, has been your aim with the issues you've raised and this PR. Having asked around it seems that this was a restriction in Umbraco 13 but doesn't need to be in 15+, so in theory it should work as expected (particularly with the change you've proposed here).

Would you mind taking a look over my changes and see if you can find any issue with the use of the file upload in the block list (or in the normal use as a property directly on a document type) please? Then if all looks good to you I think we can bring this in.